Even in the sciences we deal with this all the time. "My research is unique because" and then they fail to follow basic science principles and can't figure out why no-one can reproduce their study.
A great take on "unicorn projects," and the delusions that surround them, and I think this is part of a much broader delusion.
The unicorn fallacy applies to how individuals view themselves broadly, and I think at least part of this comes from viewing our entire present as a sort of unique and unprecedented unicorn.
Our times are unique in the specifics, but not in the underlying psychology and material elements.
Most modern psychological troubles aren't that different from what humans went through in every prior era, and to disdain the fixes that worked for them and only seek out modern fixes is a kind of shortsighted madness.
The same could be said for using the past to understand how present societal struggles may be escaped.
“Everyone is a unicorn until you ask for details of their uniqueness.”
I deal with “Unicorns” a lot in my work, i.e., implementing enterprise systems, more in the public than in the private sector.
In the public sector, a process or practice will continue in the name of law, regulation, or special dispensation, but when you ask people to provide the details of the law, regulations, or special dispensation, in most cases, the law, regulations, and special dispensation cannot be found.
Mostly, it is a practice that was started by someone and became a standard practice even though it is not the right practice and sometimes goes against the law or regulation.
I have spent some time thinking about it over the years and believe there are several reasons for it:
1. Job security: Admitting that a problem is common and can be solved with standard practices might make specific roles or expertise seem less critical.
2. Resistance to Change and Comfort with the Status Quo: Organizations and individuals often develop routines and established processes even though they go against leading practices. Changing these can be uncomfortable and require significant effort, training, or adjustments.
3. Fear of Disruption: Implementing new processes can disrupt workflows and temporarily reduce productivity; employees may be blamed for that.
4. Fear of Failure or Risk Aversion: Adopting new processes inherently involves some risk. Teams may fear that if the new approach fails, it could reflect poorly on their competence.
5. Identity: Individuals and teams often seek recognition for their unique contributions. Claiming that their projects or challenges are one-of-a-kind can enhance their perceived value within the organization.
6. Cultural Factors: A culture that rewards heroism (which is most organizations), such as those that celebrate "tough" projects or the ability to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges, can encourage teams to frame their problems as unique. This can discourage the adoption of standardized best practices.
7. Misaligned Incentives: If success is measured by the ability to tackle challenging, unique problems rather than by efficient execution and adherence to leading practices, teams may be incentivized to highlight uniqueness unnecessarily.
8. Psychological Comfort: Admitting that a problem is not unique might create cognitive dissonance if a team has already invested significant effort into framing it as such.
9. “Not Invented Here" or “This is not how we do the business here” Syndrome: This is a bias against adopting solutions developed outside the team or organization. There's a tendency to favor internally developed solutions, even if external solutions are superior.
10. Complexity and Inertia: Large organizations often have complex processes and systems. Changing these systems can be daunting, requiring significant resources and coordination. The inertia of the existing system can make it challenging to implement new processes.
How I deal with it mainly:
1. Ask for details if it goes against a leading practice.
2. Pick the right battles and focus on the areas where the organization gains the most.
3. Build a culture that supports non-hero culture.
4. Spend time understanding why they are doing what they are doing and explaining why they would be better off going in a different direction.
5. Get buy-in from the leadership and key stakeholders.
6. Sell the idea individually to each key stakeholder and then make it seem like they, as a team, came up with the idea.
7. Involve a third-party expert, a case study, or talking to someone doing it right, as sometimes that also helps sell the idea.
8. Building a continous learning and psychological safety culture also helps, but that generally requires a long-term time and resources investment.
9. Developing a prototype or piloting at a small scale has also helped in some instances.
10. Sometimes, as a last resort, Showing metrics and data showing inefficiencies is another option, even though most people do not like to hear that they are doing something wrong, especially if it has been a practice for several years or decades.
Depending on the organization's culture, one or more of the above strategies has always worked. I am sure there are other strategies.
I end this with a quote I liked a lot in the last few years; I do not know who said it: “You get what you tolerate.”
What you describe I've called "rumor regulations" I dealt with them all the time in Army and then at work. Your comment is great and I may riff off of that for a future post. Great insights!
When you have to implement projects at the Big 3 (DoD, DHHS, and DHS) and Fortune 500 companies, which are also big bureaucracies and want to succeed, you must learn and adapt. That’s what I have done, as all those 100s of millions of dollars projects are more about how the organization works and how to make people do things they do not want to do than technology.
I always say:
“Technology may be the backbone of a project, but people are its lifeblood. Mastering the art of working with people, processes, and culture is the key to delivering value and achieving lasting impact.”
I am sad to report that I have learned this lesson the hard way, over many years. This advice would have almost certainly saved a lot of headaches around 20 years ago, though, when I had those unicorn babies!
To be sure. Not to mention, I am confident that we remember these sorts of lessons well. Not too many people burn themselves twice on the same hot stove, you know?
I deal with this daily and it drives me crazy. I just take a really deep breath and describe their project in excruciating detail and then say, "I only heard about it just this minute, now why do you think I understand it so well? Because it's unique? No. Because it's like every other one we've done." That often puts a bit of a pause in their thoughts.
Good read, fun fact: reading this from my home in the Netherlands, Woudenberg.
That's awesome! It's on my list to visit. It's fun to meet someone from there.
Even in the sciences we deal with this all the time. "My research is unique because" and then they fail to follow basic science principles and can't figure out why no-one can reproduce their study.
Exactly this!
A great take on "unicorn projects," and the delusions that surround them, and I think this is part of a much broader delusion.
The unicorn fallacy applies to how individuals view themselves broadly, and I think at least part of this comes from viewing our entire present as a sort of unique and unprecedented unicorn.
Our times are unique in the specifics, but not in the underlying psychology and material elements.
Most modern psychological troubles aren't that different from what humans went through in every prior era, and to disdain the fixes that worked for them and only seek out modern fixes is a kind of shortsighted madness.
The same could be said for using the past to understand how present societal struggles may be escaped.
I talk about some of this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewperlot/p/why-were-marooned-in-the-present?r=1xulhu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Great points and something I keep tripping over too. Especially with the fear of the future and the angst against progress.
“Everyone is a unicorn until you ask for details of their uniqueness.”
I deal with “Unicorns” a lot in my work, i.e., implementing enterprise systems, more in the public than in the private sector.
In the public sector, a process or practice will continue in the name of law, regulation, or special dispensation, but when you ask people to provide the details of the law, regulations, or special dispensation, in most cases, the law, regulations, and special dispensation cannot be found.
Mostly, it is a practice that was started by someone and became a standard practice even though it is not the right practice and sometimes goes against the law or regulation.
I have spent some time thinking about it over the years and believe there are several reasons for it:
1. Job security: Admitting that a problem is common and can be solved with standard practices might make specific roles or expertise seem less critical.
2. Resistance to Change and Comfort with the Status Quo: Organizations and individuals often develop routines and established processes even though they go against leading practices. Changing these can be uncomfortable and require significant effort, training, or adjustments.
3. Fear of Disruption: Implementing new processes can disrupt workflows and temporarily reduce productivity; employees may be blamed for that.
4. Fear of Failure or Risk Aversion: Adopting new processes inherently involves some risk. Teams may fear that if the new approach fails, it could reflect poorly on their competence.
5. Identity: Individuals and teams often seek recognition for their unique contributions. Claiming that their projects or challenges are one-of-a-kind can enhance their perceived value within the organization.
6. Cultural Factors: A culture that rewards heroism (which is most organizations), such as those that celebrate "tough" projects or the ability to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges, can encourage teams to frame their problems as unique. This can discourage the adoption of standardized best practices.
7. Misaligned Incentives: If success is measured by the ability to tackle challenging, unique problems rather than by efficient execution and adherence to leading practices, teams may be incentivized to highlight uniqueness unnecessarily.
8. Psychological Comfort: Admitting that a problem is not unique might create cognitive dissonance if a team has already invested significant effort into framing it as such.
9. “Not Invented Here" or “This is not how we do the business here” Syndrome: This is a bias against adopting solutions developed outside the team or organization. There's a tendency to favor internally developed solutions, even if external solutions are superior.
10. Complexity and Inertia: Large organizations often have complex processes and systems. Changing these systems can be daunting, requiring significant resources and coordination. The inertia of the existing system can make it challenging to implement new processes.
How I deal with it mainly:
1. Ask for details if it goes against a leading practice.
2. Pick the right battles and focus on the areas where the organization gains the most.
3. Build a culture that supports non-hero culture.
4. Spend time understanding why they are doing what they are doing and explaining why they would be better off going in a different direction.
5. Get buy-in from the leadership and key stakeholders.
6. Sell the idea individually to each key stakeholder and then make it seem like they, as a team, came up with the idea.
7. Involve a third-party expert, a case study, or talking to someone doing it right, as sometimes that also helps sell the idea.
8. Building a continous learning and psychological safety culture also helps, but that generally requires a long-term time and resources investment.
9. Developing a prototype or piloting at a small scale has also helped in some instances.
10. Sometimes, as a last resort, Showing metrics and data showing inefficiencies is another option, even though most people do not like to hear that they are doing something wrong, especially if it has been a practice for several years or decades.
Depending on the organization's culture, one or more of the above strategies has always worked. I am sure there are other strategies.
I end this with a quote I liked a lot in the last few years; I do not know who said it: “You get what you tolerate.”
What you describe I've called "rumor regulations" I dealt with them all the time in Army and then at work. Your comment is great and I may riff off of that for a future post. Great insights!
When you have to implement projects at the Big 3 (DoD, DHHS, and DHS) and Fortune 500 companies, which are also big bureaucracies and want to succeed, you must learn and adapt. That’s what I have done, as all those 100s of millions of dollars projects are more about how the organization works and how to make people do things they do not want to do than technology.
I always say:
“Technology may be the backbone of a project, but people are its lifeblood. Mastering the art of working with people, processes, and culture is the key to delivering value and achieving lasting impact.”
I’m dealing with the same thing having worked with the DoD for years.
I wonder if there is a group of people working together to build a starship (spaceship capable of traveling light speed)? 🤔
That would be unique. However, I hope they follow good, established, engineering practices for design and V&V.
I've often said "Everyone wants to be unique... just like everybody else."
Exactly right. Like Hipsters in their ironic individual conformity.
I am sad to report that I have learned this lesson the hard way, over many years. This advice would have almost certainly saved a lot of headaches around 20 years ago, though, when I had those unicorn babies!
Doh! To be fair, I think we've all been there. It takes some time to see the patterns.
To be sure. Not to mention, I am confident that we remember these sorts of lessons well. Not too many people burn themselves twice on the same hot stove, you know?
I deal with this daily and it drives me crazy. I just take a really deep breath and describe their project in excruciating detail and then say, "I only heard about it just this minute, now why do you think I understand it so well? Because it's unique? No. Because it's like every other one we've done." That often puts a bit of a pause in their thoughts.
That's an interesting technique. I can see it working!